Archive for the ‘free speech’ Category

What the pro Terror, Islamic Lobby CAIR didn’t want you to hear

November 20, 2007

What the pro Terror (pro Genocidal-Hamas), ‘Islamic Lobby CAIR’ didn’t want you to hear
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J34Ub8q2niE

Advertisements

MSM Doesn’t Care About Google’s Pro-Jihadi Censorship

November 7, 2007

MSM Doesn’t Care About Google’s Pro-Jihadi Censorship

Photo of Matthew Vadum.

By Matthew Vadum | November 6, 2007 – 16:41 ET

As Islamic scholar Robert Spencer can tell you, the mainstream media has barely noticed that Google, the Internet search engine giant, is now deciding for its users which ideas are acceptable and which are not. It’s never been a secret that Google leans left and won’t tolerate ideas it doesn’t agree with. The company hired global warming profiteer Al Gore as senior advisor and has a history of purging content based on ideology. More evidence of the company’s thinly-veiled, warm and fuzzy politically correct authoritarianism keeps popping up.

Now Google Video has suppressed a video of a speech that Spencer, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), made at Dartmouth College. Spencer, whose family comes from the Muslim world, sees his work as “calling attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence.” He carefully explains his belief that “Islam is not a monolith,” and says that he has “never” characterized all Muslims “as terrorist or given to violence.”

Google de-listed several conservative e-zines and blogs from its news crawl last year, banned anti-MoveOn.org ads, and is complicit in state censorship in communist China.

Whether you agree with all of his statements (and I’m not sure that I do), Spencer criticizes Islam for its shortcomings. He’s not preaching intolerance, and apparently there was no violation of Google Video’s rules which preclude the posting of “illegal content,” “invasions of personal privacy,” “pornography or obscenity,” “hate or incitement of violence,” “graphic violence or other acts resulting in serious injury or death,” and “violations of copyright.” But that’s not good enough for politically correct Google, which seems to believe that if you fail to genuflect at the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace altar, you’re guilty of “hate speech.”

So Google finds itself in the same camp as the Wahhabi front group known as the Council of American-Islamic Relations whose lawyer calls Spencer “a well-known purveyor of hatred and bigotry against Muslims.”

Playing the “bigotry” card is an effective smear technique mastered by CAIR and its allies. As Spencer notes:

Cries of “hatred” and “bigotry” are effectively used by American Muslim advocacy groups to try to stifle the debate about the terrorist threat…It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology…those who make the charge know better in any case: they use the charge as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth.

The mainstream media has been silent on this outrage so far, but some bloggers have sounded off. (See Little Green Footballs, Stop the ACLU, and Girl in Short Shorts.)

Meanwhile, the do-gooders at Google have embraced the soft authoritarianism of so-called corporate social responsibility or CSR. This socialist doctrine holds that profit is illegitimate and requires businesses to “pay back” the communities from which those profits were extracted. The late economist Milton Friedman railed against CSR, arguing here that companies that divert revenue to “socially responsible” ventures are in effect taxing their shareholders. Taxation is the province of government, not business, and CSR makes corporate executives civil servants. Google’s approach to CSR involves a commitment to spend $1 billion of its shareholders’ money saving the world by fighting poverty and reversing global warming. As John Reosti writes in “Google.org: Reaching for Utopia,” (available in the new issue of Foundation Watch):

Certainly, there are reasons to applaud Google, the Internet search-engine powerhouse whose name has become so identified in the public mind with World Wide Web searches that it has become a verb, to google. After the wealth-destroying scams of Enron, WorldCom and their ilk, it is refreshing to come across a corporation that makes money and goes public in announcing its philanthropic intentions. But there are reasons to be uneasy about the course Google has charted. Google’s corporate origins are unique and its corporate philanthropy is so innovative and extravagant that any misstep could make the company subject to close government scrutiny and undermine the financial success that benefits its shareholders.

Liberal and environmentalist groups have already benefited from Google’s philanthropy. The venerable Brookings Institution received $200,000 for a 2008 conference on plug-in hybrid vehicles. The Energy Foundation received $50,000 for climate change research. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) received $100,000 “to support the Environmental Entrepreneurs Climate Campaign to assist with the implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” The race-baiting National Urban League was one of five groups to share in a total of $750,000 awarded for Hurricane Katrina relief.

Not surprisingly, it’s hard to find anything but praise for Google’s adventures in philanthropy. Softball items have run in BusinessWeek, the International Herald Tribune, Slate.com, and USA Today.BusinessWeek, the International Herald Tribune, Slate.com, and USA Today.

—Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch at the Capital Research Center.

American Muslims Must Learn To Accept Free Speech

October 21, 2007

American Muslims Must Learn To Accept Free Speech

http://outsidethewire.mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/20/american-muslims-must-learn-to-accept-free-speech/

And I’m not just talking about Muslims. A lot of people need to take a time-out instead of getting all upset anytime someone says something you don’t agree with.

Almost every day, I read about some group upset something was said. It’s called racist, insensitive, intolerant, and I’m finding I’m repeating myself on these points every few columns. At the same time, liberals call conservatives every name they can think of, because when THEY do it, that’s okay because THEY are the enlightened.

Local Muslims upset by UW campus event

Seattle Times religion reporter

A controversial week of events, billed as Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, launches at the University of Washington and some 100 other colleges next week — drawing condemnations from Muslim groups here and across the country.

The UW College Republicans, organizer of the local events, say the week is intended to foster awareness of the terrorist threat posed by a small number of extremists within Islam.

But some local Muslims say the week fosters Islamophobia and racism and attempts to paint all Muslims as terrorists.

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, launched this year by a recent graduate of Duke University and sponsored by the Los Angeles-based David Horowitz Freedom Center, is intended to “confront the two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat,” according to its Web site.

The Web site includes suggested campus activities such as holding sit-ins outside women’s studies departments to protest “the silence of feminists over the oppression of women in Islam” and holding a memorial service for the “victims of Islamo-Fascist violence around the world.”

Again, we’ve bent over backwards for Muslims in America, and what do we get as thanks? Well, certainly not always “Thanks.”

For example, Christians and Jews cannot pray in an American public school or on it’s grounds without incurring the wrath of the ACLU. Conversely, Muslims have been given (in some public schools) designated areas within the building where they can pray, and they got this and other considerations (and concessions) within our society because they make persistent “demands”.

In the United States of America, our First Amendment guarantees us freedom of speech; a concept that can get you killed in some countries. Our First Amendment also guarantees freedom of assembly, so if some students want to have “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week”, they’ll just have to deal with it. Muslims are free to protest all that week if they want to, but because it’s a topic that has merit and they don’t want to hear it, doesn’t mean anyone has to shut up.

I don’t recall seeing Americans taking to the streets, burning Middle East nation flags, while chanting “death” to that nation. We could, as that’s our guaranteed right, but we don’t because we’re better than that. The recent bombings in Pakistan, for example, were not a new phenomenon. The wanton killing of civilians by religious fanatics has been a consistent terror tactic used, and must be denounced without reservation or condition. That is what, I believe, “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” is all about.

No where in the “Terrorist Awareness” literature and commentary does the word “all” precede the word “Muslims”. If it did, they would be wrong.

Don’t kill the messenger as the messenger is not the one doing the killing.